Ressy’s Comments

What you didn't post, was that that offer from Bell for mobile TV for $5/month is against our ITMP rules the CRTC put in place in 2009.

PLUS there's currently a complaint against Bell lodged with the CRTC about this package, which is ongoing.

Large ISPs in Canada don't care about/follow the rules the CRTC has in place because a lot of the time it'll make them more money, and they hope they can get away with it. The public however can make a complaint, and the CRTC can smack them for not following rules. Which is what's happening now with the complaint.

Fairly certain that Lutz is the pawn here.. Especially as he was on Prenda's monthly payroll until at least February 2012, when they went to ADP (company that does payroll for you), so you can't see the payroll breakdown after that.

I think that's where one of the IPs resolved to, yes.
There was a big post about it on DSLReports.com (Canadian Broadband) back then where people were checking where the 50 IPs resolved to - whether commercial, or private.

They may have fought it in 2004, but they didn't fight the copytroll attempt from Voltage in 2011.

In fact, Bell along with the other ISPs wrote to the Judge specifically stating that they wouldn't be fighting the court order, or even appearing for any court hearings.

The letter was mistakenly in the public file when someone viewed the file in the Montreal courts. When the person who saw it and requested a photocopy of the page, staff realized their error, and removed it from the file, refusing to allow it to be copied.

Nowhere in the privacy policy does it say they have to fight a potential court order on behalf of their customers. Privacy policy does essentially say that if there is a court order, they have to follow it.

I don't get why people seem to think Teksavvy should they pick up the bill to defend their customers from the suit?

Meanwhile, just last month Distributel & 3web (2 other major indie ISPs here in Canada) didn't do what Teksavvy has done (ie fought to push back the order so that they could inform affected customers, and advise them to get legal counsel), and just rolled over and handed over the subscriber info.

They did NOT fight the order in any manner whatsoever, and will now be seeing settlement letters in their near future.

What neither of these 2 stories said, was that its a small test of 157 children in the US, ages 6-17, who are already opioid-tolerant, and are experiencing extreme pain from cancer, post-operative pain, and severe burns.